The role of prior knowledge in learning from analogies in science texts

Discourse Processes

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 447-479

  Braasch, Jason L G ^a   Goldman, Susan R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE POITIERS   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955333100     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01638530903420960     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Afflerbach, P. (2002). The use of think-aloud protocols and verbal reports as research methodology. In M. Kamil (Ed.), Methods of literacy research (pp. 87-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2. Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17, 286-303.
3. Alexander, P. A. (1992). Domain knowledge: evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychologist, 27, 33-51.
4. Alexander, P. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1991). Domain-specific and strategic knowledge as predictors of expository text comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 165-190.
5. Bean, T. W., Searles, D., & Cowen, S. (1990). Text-based analogies. Reading Psychology, 11, 322-333.
6. Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 17-34.
7. Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237-261.
8. Caplan, L. J., & Schooler, C. (2000). On the use of analogy in text-based memory and comprehension: The interaction between complexity of within-domain and between-domain processing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 41-70.
9. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improve understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
11. Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257-273.
12. Clement, C. A., & Yanowitz, K. L. (2003). Using analogy to model causal mechanisms in a complex text. Instructional Science, 31, 195-225.
13. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York: Academic.
14. Coté, N., & Goldman, S. R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children's think-aloud protocols. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representation during reading (pp. 169-193). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
15. Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
16. Curtis, R. V., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1984). The use of analogies in written text. Instructional Science, 13,99-117.
17. Day, S. B., & Gentner, D. (2007). Nonintentional analogical inference in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35, 39-49.
18. Dennis, M. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Cognition and instruction. In F. T. Durso (Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 571-593). New York: Wiley.
19. Donnelly, C. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). Use of analogy in learning scientific concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 975-987.
20. Donnelly, C. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (2000). Analogy with knowledgeable learners: When analogy confers benefits and exacts costs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 537-543.
21. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649-672.
22. English, L., & Halford, G. (1995). Mathematics education: Models and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
23. Friedel, A. W., Gabel, D., & Samuel, J. (1990). Using analogs for chemistry problem solving: Does it increase understanding? School Science and Mathematics, 90, 674-682.
24. Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D. (1980). Effect of using analogies on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. Science Education, 64, 709-716.
25. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
26. Gentner, D. (1998). Analogy. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 107-113). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
27. Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters of teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99-129). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
28. Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy: Introduction. American Psychologist, 52, 32-34.
29. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
30. Gerrig, R. J., & O'Brien, E. J. (2005). The scope of memory-based processing. Discourse Processes, 39,225-242.
31. Gilbert, S. W. (1989). An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile, and metaphor in science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 315-327.
32. Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogiesmodel. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 219-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33. Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Semrud-Clikeman, M., & Muth, K. D. (1989). Analogical reasoningand problem solving in science textbooks. In J. Glover, R. Ronning, & C. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: Assessment, research, & theory (pp. 383-398). New York: Plenum.
34. Glynn, S. M., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 3-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35. Glynn, S. M., Law, M., & Doster, E. C. (1998). Making texts meaningful: The role of analogies. In C. R. Hynd & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Learning from text across conceptual domains (pp. 193-208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
36. Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1057-1073.
37. Glynn, S. M., Muth, K. D., & Britton, B. K. (1990). Thinking out loud about concepts in science text: How instructional objectives work. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, S. N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context (pp. 215-233). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
38. Glynn, S. M., & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1129-1149.
39. Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
40. Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357-398.
41. Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317-350). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
42. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
43. Goswami, U. (1992). Analogical reasoning in children. East Sussex, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates, Inc.
44. Hayes, D., & Tierney, R. (1982). Developing reader's knowledge through analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 256-280.
45. Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-893.
46. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Iding, M. K. (1993). Instructional analogies and elaborations in science text: Effects on recall and transfer performance. Reading Psychology, 14, 33-55.
48. Iding, M. K. (1997). How analogies foster learning from science texts. Instructional Science, 25, 233-253.
49. Johnson, M. A., & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 877-893.
50. Kaufman, D. R., Patel, V. L., & Magder, S. A. (1996). The explanatory role of spontaneously generated analogies in reasoning about physiological concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 369-386.
51. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The role of readers' misconceptionson text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235-245.
52. Kintsch, W. (1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53. Lawson, A. E. (1993). The importance of analogy: A prelude to the special issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1213-1214.
54. McDaniel, M. A., & Donnelly, C. M. (1996). Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 508-519.
55. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 79-93.
56. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
57. McNamara, D. S., Floyd, R. G., Best, R., & Louwerse, M. (2004). World knowledge driving young readers' comprehension difficulties. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Learning Sciences, 326-333.
58. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from texts. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 1-43.
59. Myers, J. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131-157.
60. O'Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35-53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
61. Paris, N. A., & Glynn, S. M. (2004). Elaborate analogies in science text: Tools for enhancing pre- service teachers' knowledge and attitudes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 230-247.
62. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal reports of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91-109.
64. Spellman, B. A., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Pragmatics in analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 31,307-346.
65. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Coulson, R. L., & Anderson, D. K. (1989). Multiple analogies for complex concepts: Antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 498-531). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
66. Stavy, R. (1991). Using analogies to overcome misconceptions about conservation of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 305-313.
67. Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,537-544.
68. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1991). Using analogies in secondary chemistry teaching. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 37, 10-14.
69. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). The nature and extent of analogies in secondary chemistry textbooks. Instructional Science, 22, 61-74.
70. Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., & Venville, G. J. (1996). Teachingscience effectively with analogies: An approachfor preservice and inservice teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9,85-101.
71. Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). Analogies in biology education: A contentious issue. American Biology Teacher, 59, 282-287.
72. Vosniadou, S., & Schommer, M. (1988). Explanatory analogies can help children acquire information from expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 524-538.
73. Voss, J. F., & Silfies, L. N. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 45-68.
74. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
75. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 23, 467-502.
76. Wolfe, M. B. W., Schreiner, M. E., Rehder, B., Laham, D., Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., et al. (1998). Learning from texts: Matching readers and texts by latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25,309-336.
77. Yanowitz, K. L. (2001). Using analogies to improve elementary school students' inferential reasoning about scientific concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 133-145.
78. Yekovich, F. R., Walker, C. H., Ogle, L. T., & Thompson, M. A. (1990). The influence of domain knowledge on inferencing in low-aptitude individuals. In A. C. Graesser & G. H. Bower (Eds.), Inferences and text comprehension: The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 25 (pp. 259-278). New York: Academic.
79. Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentations. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 41-72.
80. Zook, K. B., & di Vesta, F. J. (1991). Instructional analogies and conceptual misrepresentations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 246-252.
81. Zook, K. B., & Maier, J. M. (1994). Systematic analysis of variables that contribute to the formation of analogical misconceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 589-600.